Years Go By, Memories Linger On

I can remember that day.  It was a warm, sunny and eventful day for myself, as I was into my second week of being a student at Hofstra University.  I had morning classes, and had just finished an English Literature course which would be followed by a Political Science course.  It was about 9:30 am that I and my fellow students and professors heard the first reports of two passenger airliners crashing into both World Trade Center towers.  None of us in the room knew what to make of the events, although for myself I did remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  So for me it did not come as much of a surprise to hear of a second incident, this time more fatal than the first.  After a few minutes of discussion regarding our thoughts on the developing matter, a student in the nearby building barged in to announce that a plane had crashed the Pentagon.  There were unconfirmed reports of a bombing in the Washington Monument and a car bomb going off at the State Department; thankfully those turned out to be false.

We and others went to the nearby Bits N' Bytes on campus to watch the news reports coming in.  When I got there, the South Tower collapsed 1 minute later.  Within less than a half hour after that, the North Tower collapsed. All told, with the WTC, Pentagon and a plane crash in Shankesville, Pennsylvania; some 3,000 or so people lost their lives that day.  This included hundreds of NYPD and FDNY officials. The date has been etched in my memory for the last 15 years; September 11, 2001.  I personally did not lose anyone that was family or close friends that day, yet I knew of far too many that faced an irreparable loss.  My father, who had only retired from the FDNY two years prior,  lost several firefighters that he personally knew, including at least a select few from his same ladder company.

For myself, I got home at my usual time, and got back to attending classes the next day.  Life went on, although my perspective of life had irreversibly changed on 911.  I suppose for many, including those younger than me, a day such as the one 15 years ago had its purpose and is looked at as part of a history lesson: maybe life to them has always felt the way it seems now.  Yet, I guess you would have needed to be there during the years, months and even days before 911.  Bill Maher in his book of essays "When You Ride Alone, You Ride With Bin Laden" I think put the 10 years or so before 911 to its proper meaning; the Seinfeld decade.  Yes, much like the famed Jerry Seinfeld sitcom, the era 1991-2001 was one of trends and scandals and ideals and innovations that, with few exceptions, did not matter in the slightest.  How low did it get?  In my opinion, 1998 was the nadir, a year in which the world and particularly Americans were so fixated on President Bill Clinton's affairs with other women.  In case you forgot, Pres. Clinton was impeached though not convicted for lying to a purported grand jury over an extramarital relationship (which was just oral sex) that any sane person would also deny until caught red handed.  As a confirmation of the abject stupidity of the year, Time Magazine had as its People of the Year not only Pres. Clinton, yet also Kenneth Starr; the independent counsel and Iran-Contra figure who quickly faded into academia obscurity.

Well, if the 90's were the Seinfeld decade, it can be said that 911 was the Seinfeld series finale.  All those incidents that were trivial came to nip us in the bud, and the consequences of our collective carelessness came to fruition that day.  For myself, the rest of 2001 was in effect my social political and economic awakening.  I had realized that all I was interested in, from the Clinton sex scandals to the Rep. Gary Condit incident to which politician had an interest in pop culture, meant not one thing.  I had probably started the awakening earlier in the year when I registered to vote and started watching Meet The Press with Tim Russert every Sunday, though I was in that phase of in one ear and out the other with the issues at hand.  That all changed after that September morning.  Many that know me know my ideas and beliefs regarding 911 and the years afterwards.  I am not here to regurgitate what I am aware of and what I feel on this matter.  I will mention that on every Election Day from 2001 onward, and on many Primary Days in recent years, I have voted.  For every elective office and proposition on any given ballot.  And I'm voting this Election Day as well.

The 2016 election however has been concerning to say the least.  Not least of which is the growing reality of a low turnout followed by a perceived apathy among the voting public.  And if it is not apathy, it is certainly a desire to be selfish in approach and temerity.  I am not pleased with this degradation of the issues both foreign and domestic that need to affect a campaign for any elected office.  Believe me, many may not care; but there are those that will do the caring for them, and will inevitably make life worse for the uncaring.  If that means the United States loses its influence on geopolitical issues to a number of developing countries, then that is the fate the US has chosen.

Of all the purported lessons and legacies 911 was supposed to exemplify, none that have appeared in nearly all publications and media are feasible and none are worthwhile.  For myself, 911 provided only one lesson to be learned, though it is a big lesson:  we have been and continue to be willingly conned.  When we stop caring, we should not be surprised that the void left in the socio-political structure will be filled by people and ideas that do not give a flying fig about you.  I am sadly seeing this again, which in these times will lead the populace on a path to ruin.  That is what we should remember when we remember 9 11.  Simply stated, all need to be aware and involved in our social political and economic world of whom we are and what we need to become.  We would be living in a better and more humane world if people stopped caring about their trivial matters and started focusing on the betterment of all in their lives and those that will come after we leave.

As a unique addition to this blog, which I need to write on more often, I can remember a time when popular music and rock music took stands on issues that needed to be addressed.  I rarely hear anything close to a protest song these days.  Here are some that I can remember hearing after 911 and the years that followed which mattered for me in artists stating the truth.

And of course many more .

Not the end of the matter, only the beginning,

Robert

On this winter's night

Lately I have been not talking about the social political world as much as I normally do.  Mind you, this is not unusual; after Election Day of any given year, my focus of interests turn to smaller yet fruitful observations and ideals that are personally more important.  Matters like the holidays (Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, November 30, World Aids Day, Star Wars Day/Steven Spielberg's birthday, Christmas), my five year anniversary of my first paying job and my three year anniversary of my return to the GAP program, Going over my favored movies, music, TV, Web and pop culture events; decorating my home and finalizing a wishlist.  Infrequent visits to New York City.  And most notably, my relationships with my family, friends, colleagues, loved ones and others I meet.

None the less, I do have dreams.  A lot of them are abstract and involve a celebrity popping up at random times and inexplicable reasons.  There are others that involve running from an impending disaster. Some of these dreams involve the aftermath of a WMD attack of some kind, usually a nuclear detonation.  As often the case when such a dream or nightmare comes forth, I wake up in a sweat and feel momentarily odd; it quickly subsides.  Yet the memory, or at least the feeling, lingers.

Be it macabre or an odd obsession, I have been looking at YouTube videos that relate to the aftermath and even the buildup to a nuclear confrontation.  For instance, I have been looking at a mid-late 1970's series of public service announcements detailing the need to prepare and survive a nuclear holocaust in the UK.  I find it disturbing, for a myriad of reasons.  See for yourself.

This has prompted me to look at one of the first HBO TV movies, Countdown to Looking Glass.  A rather disturbing fake news account on an impeding nuclear crisis.

How do we know it is only a TV movie?  It stars Helen Shaver and Scott Glenn; you can also see Michael Murphy in a small role.  Everything else feels like a news broadcast; it matters not that it seems like a Canadian newscast.  It appears real.

In a form of symmetry that I find problematic, I have also been looking at Raymond Briggs' other well respected animated adaptation of one of his books.  It should be The Snowman, though itappears to be recently When The Wind Blows.

If that was not enough, I found this hidden gem; Nicholas Meyer's Laserdisc commentary of his film The Day After.  It is not present on the DVD, so this is rare.  Admittedly, it does not hold up as a full indictment on nuclear weaponry unlike Threads or The War Game.  Yet still it matters a bit.

With all of these videos seen and related matters, I keep thinking:  why am I seeing these videos, and more importantly why is it that many of them take place during the 1980's?  I suppose I can give an idea as to why this now concerns me.

Next year, a presidential election will take place.  So will other elections.  As I have mentioned many times, I am an ardent Sen. Hillary Clinton supporter.  With a Clinton presidency again, I and others Know there will not be a nuclear catastrophe inflicted upon us all.  Perhaps the same will go for any other Democratic or Independent candidate.  There may be even a few Republicans that feel the same way.  Yet, I am concerned we get certain Republicans elected that will harm us all.  A Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, Sen. Ted Cruz or even a Sen. Marco Rubio presidency will begin the process of a more agitated foreign policy.  Indeed, a Carson or Cruz presidency, especially a Carson presidency, is a near guarantee of war as the First option.

I ask you: is it really a sane idea to elect a warmongering presidency?  Is it a sane idea to go back to a policy of wars and uncertainty?  Is it a sane idea to go looking for someone to blame, when it is obvious the blame is on you and I?  I do not think it is a sane idea, and those that I talk with do not think it is sane either.  Yet, despite assurances from many of my family, friends and loved ones stating that the people in the US will not fall into this trap; I have my concerns.

Perhaps in a year, this talk and these concerns will be for naught.  And yet, though not often, I still have these dreams of impending doom.

I do want to end this essay on a more uplifting note.  I had mentioned The Snowman, an animated British special from 1982 that is clearly one of the better Christmas tales committed to film.  I found this video a while back; overdubbing the music and songs in a sequence of the animation with one of Steve Hackett's best songs after he left genesis.  It fits perfectly well with the visual sequences you see herein.

Thanks for your understanding,

Robert

An explanation for now

I do have a lot to tell regarding my ideas of a Joe Biden Presidential campaign, a Jim Webb run for the Presidency as an Independent, the growing new neo-conservative movement propping up, my thoughts on the Steven Spielberg new gem Bridge Of Spies, my definition of a Social Justice Warrior, and my plans for eventual video production.  However, I have been sidetracked by the New York Mets in the process of heading to the World Series; right now dashing fans of Back To The Future the hopes of a 2015 Cubs World Series win.  And this is coming from someone far more interested in Football, Soccer and individual sports.  Should the Mets go all the way, I think we may have a clear winner for Postseason MVP.

To note, while my family and I have been Yankee fans; we are more prone to being fans of a region when that region is still in the postseason running; especially New York.  So, no bitterness here.  And with that, hopefully this is not speaking too soon:

Let's Go Mets!

Robert

We blew it!

The title refers to one of the iconic lines in movie history, when Captain America (Peter Fonda) disagrees with Billy (Dennis Hopper) on their success of their cross country trek in Easy Rider.  A little afterwards, both main characters are killed by a ragtag group of ignorant rednecks.  In retrospect, it may not have been the best idea to have the two leads make their money off of drugs and getting in on a wild mind trip.  These sorts of ambiguities are not shown in most movies.  Indeed, the rare times these ambiguities are shown involve the drug war.  We can go on a long discussion regarding the drug war and its abject failure; that will be for another time.

For now, our focus is the drug war's effect on law enforcement and public policy.  Two weeks ago, the newest film from Denis Villeneuve, Sicario, was released.  It marks Villeneuve's second collaboration with Academy Award nominated Roger Deakins, and involves a great screenplay from newcomer Taylor Sheridan.  As well, Thad Luckinbill (J.T. Hellstrom on The Young and the Restless) was one of the producers of this movie, along with his twin brother Trent, as part of their new Black Label Media company.  By all accounts, this is a great movie; in fact one of the best films of this year, along with some of the best acting people like Emily Blunt and Benicio Del Toro have shown in quite some time.  Like many of these sorts of fictional works, Sicario tells us a heck of a lot more about our failed drug policies than what we can usually expect from our leaders.  Rarely if ever will you see a political figure declare the "War On Drugs" to have failed and been bad policy from the word go.  Because to do that would reveal greater truths that would cause the public great outrage.

By this point, I am going to expose some important plot points this movie explores; although going in you should know that Denis Villeneuve does not go for happy endings. Just about every film of Villeneuve's involve moral ambiguity.  Sicario brings this to the forefront in the last hour or so. While not going into full detail, what seems like a clear cut operation to curtail the finances of Mexican drug lords turns into a continuation of US Government policy in effectively running the drug trade.  It is evident when Victor Garber's character pretty much sanctions these extrajudicial means of obtaining a drug cartel's finances; it is more pronounced when Emily Blunt's character gets into a one-night stand with a corrupt Texas cop played by Jon Bernthal that is found to be a bag man for the cartel's leaders.  And it is most obviously evident when twice in Sicario Benecio Del Toro's character is mentioned by his code name Medellin.

If you are not familiar with the word and meaning of Medellin, or if you only remember it as Vincent Chase's first movie he directed yet was panned (see Entourage), the Medellin drug cartel in Colombia was during the late 1970's through early 1990's the most profitable drug running operation known to man.  And while it was Pablo Escobar that ruled society with sort of an iron fist before he was gunned down in 1993; the financial whirlwind was benefited most by (gasp!) the United States Government.  This is pretty much explained after the second time we hear Del Toro's character mentioned as Medellin after Alejandro (Del Toro) pretty much seeks out his wife and daughter's killer alone.

It is that second time when Kate (Blunt) hears the phrase; leading to her punching Josh Brolin's character, a CIA task force leader, in the face.  Afterwards, Brolin's character states that the US Government needs to resurrect the Medellin cartel in order to curb the turf wars in Mexico.  And it is due to, as Matt (Brolin) states "20 million people snorting and smoking this stuff"; this stuff being cocaine, of course.  And yes, Alejandro does get to murder the drug cartel leader and his family while having dinner.  And it is implied that Kate leaves the agency after signing papers legislating the legality of the drug operations.  All the same, nothing is truly ended.  The side story of a father and cop from Juarez doing supply routes in order to get some extra money just to get by ends in that cop being killed by Alejandro.  The last scene shows his wife and son attending a soccer game the son is playing; you can hear gunfire as the game goes on.  Indeed, that reminded me of how for many in thee countries the way out is through sports, association football in particular.  Even so, there is no guarantee one will get out alive through sports.  The year after Pablo Escobar was killed; Andres Escobar (no relation) was gunned down by a rival cartel after accidentally causing Team Colombia to use their quarterfinal round in the 1994 World Cup: the infamous own goal game.

It is quite amazing yet sad that a great deal of policies and funding for programs and other matters pertaining to the United States is continually done through the proliferation of illegal drugs.  I know the easiest thing to do would be to have everyone stop taking this shit; yet it is this same shit that finances these extrajudicial operations the United States Government does without consequence.  I firmly believe a movie can tell people a greater truth than what we may witness in our real life news reports.  For me, this is the second film in as many years that exposes our country's double standards at least regarding drug usage and proliferation.  Last year Kill The Messenger, one of the better movies of 2014, did not get as much public attention as it should have; apparently the truth is still a bitter pill to swallow among moviegoers at large.  Fortunately, Sicario is still playing at theaters near you; and you can also eventually see it on demand or on Blu-Ray; same goes with Kill The Messenger.  Do go see this movie.  I will have more to say regarding the drug war culture soon enough.

Talk to you shortly,

Robert

An (alleged) actor prepares for his next (alleged) role

I have been interested in the performing arts such as movies and theater for quite some time now.  Despite this interest and knowledge, I have yet to be considered an actor; much less any important person involved in film making and stagecraft.  However, in the past two years, I have been involved with an acting troupe that at least once every year puts on a show in front of an audience consisting of our families and others from the Town of Oyster Bay, New York.  It relates to the Town's Group Activities Program for the Disabled, for which I am considered due to having Asperger's Syndrome. 

Each Spring since 2013, I have been involved in acting in a play or musical of some sort.  In 2013, I was both Bill the candy store owner and a composite of the TV reporters in Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory.  The next year, we did something different in a number of us portrayed important singers over the past 60 years.  It was our take on a Legends in Concert performance you might see on a cruise ship.  For my part, I was John Belushi in his Blues Brothers alter ego.  This past May, I was the Chris Penn character Willard in an interesting hybrid staging of Footloose.  We took elements from both the film and the later Broadway musical.  So, I got to sing (gasp!) a couple different times, notably the Randy Newman sound alike Mama Says.  Now, try picturing me singing this.

Sadly, I did not get to do the full song.  Oh well, had to make it just under an hour and 10 minutes.

So, next month the GAP drama program gets back in business after having the summer off.  I am hoping we may be able to do something for the Christmas season, even though it might be at best a holiday themed Legends in Concert sort of occasion.  None the less, we are definitely going to put on a show sometime next year in either April or May.  I would like to believe that before the year is out, we will find out what play/musical act we are doing.

This is where you come in.  I have some ideas that I would hope receive the necessary traction and approval of the GAP leadership; though I am far from the only person jotting down ideas.  Here are quite a few that I have considered for what we could do.

Disney related.

Inside Out
Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs
Toy Story (any of the movies)
Wall-E
The Lion King

Jim Henson related.

The Muppet Movie
The Great Muppet Caper
The Muppet Show (a sort of best of sketches)
Sesame Street (perhaps some of the better sketches over the years)
Labyrinth
The Dark Crystal
The Cube
The Storyteller ( any of a number of episodes)
A number of different TV specials involving Jim Henson and/or the Muppets
Note:  There would be no need to use puppetry.  I would prefer those involved being ourselves, yet imitating our characters by wearing related costumes.  In the case of a character like Kermit The Frog, a sweater or onesie (jumpsuit pajama) will suffice.

All ages acceptable, musical or film based

The Last Unicorn
Fun Home
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time
Finding Neverland (possibly the movie version)
A Hard Day's Night
Help!
Yellow Submarine
Bye Bye Birdie
Star Wars (any of the movies; though I have not yet seen Episode VII yet)
The Sandlot
Wallace and Gromit
Shaun the Sheep
The Pirates
Fantastic Mr. Fox
E.T.

I like these, although opinions may vary

Company
West Side Story (no alterations to the ending)
Into The Woods
Starlight Express
Cats
My Dinner With Andre
Toys
The Wall
Me and Earl and The Dying Girl
The Land Before Time
The Odd Couple (preferably the Lemmon-Matthau film)
The Producers
Blazing Saddles
Monty Python's Flying Circus (any number of sketches)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Monty Python's Life of Brian
Spamalot


And a special section.  Should we be doing another Legends in Concert type show, I think we could do some of these artists.

Pink Floyd
Sir Paul McCartney
The Who
ABBA
Janet Jackson
Peter Gabriel
Joni Mitchell
The Temptations
Prince
George Harrison
Stevie Wonder
Billy Joel
The Pretenders
U2
Paul Simon
Kiss
Arcade Fire
Husker Du
The B-52's


Where you come in is as follows: I would like to know what you think of these suggestions.  I would also like to know if you have any ideas of what we could do for next year.  If you can, please either comment or post or like this essay either here or on Facebook.  I would like to hear from you.

Here is an added incentive:  you can give me a suggestion, and if anyone asks, I could post a video of me acting out a role from that particular character and/or play/musical/movie.  Think of it like a screen test, or rather one of those lip sync dubbing videos only it is me actually saying the lines.

If you want, I can post an idea for what sort of musical I might like, though others are not sure.  I really think we could do a play such as this; provided some material is altered.

Once again, let me know what all of you think about these ideas.  I would like to hear your ideas as well.

Surprisingly have not been to a Broadway show in quite a while,

Robert Kelly

Miscavige's Successor

 Recently, I have written my thoughts and concerns regarding the Church of Scientology.  I have noticed that since the release of the Alex Gibney documentary Going Clear, the Church is now effectively in an crisis of its own doing.  Membership is down to 50,000 at best; and any attempts at smearing the whistleblowers have been met with needed ridicule.  I cannot say for certain if David Miscavige is about to have his religion be relegated to the status of outright cult.  I do however believe there has ben a successor religion to pick up where Scientology left off.  And indeed, a leader has already been chosen.

The religion I refer to is the Roman Catholic Church, and its leader(s) are Pope Benedict XVI (born Joseph Ratzinger, retired/deposed) and most notably Pope Francis (born Jorge Mario Brogolia, active).  It is Pope Francis and his leadership capabilities which I am concerned about. Now, people that know me know that I am considered a Catholic, having gone through all the official rites of church membership and living nearby an important diocese with offices in Rockville Centre.  Yet, I have not been to a Sunday Mass in quite a number of years, for quite a number of reasons too numerous to mention.  Indeed, if you were to press me on the issue, I would say Roger Ebert's memoir Life Itself explains best my antipathy towards the religious hierarchy.  It does not, however, mean I am in tune with Church doctrine; for one thing, I am pro-choice. Many Catholics sadly are not pro-choice.  As well, I am of the belief that a female can be just as important of a religious leader in the Catholic order as any male. 

Yet, those are only minor issues at this time.  My leading concern, and one I think is shared by many, is the intertwined relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and our secular world we live in.  In the two years since the installation of Pope Francis, the Church has seen a massive publicity campaign that did not occur for decades earlier.  What gets me is that not one year before, Alex Gibney had directed and produced a documentary regarding the abuses the Church has done to younger men; focusing mainly on those that were abused at a Catholic school for the hearing impaired.  If you can look for it, Mea Maxima Culpa was shown on HBO and might be found on Blu-Ray and DVD at Amazon. 

This push for a Catholic revival has occurred just under a decade after questions regarding the Church's financial properties and management of banking institutions came to the forefront.  As of today, the Church owns more property and businesses outright than what we can imagine.  In effect, membership in the Church does require a hefty frigging fee every time the collection plate gets passed during Sunday Mass; the more you pay, the more you get to obtain their version of Clear, or perhaps OT VIII. 

So for me, I have a problem with a religion that demands your money for their wisdom.  Yet you know what else; I am deeply aghast at the child abuse that goes on with younger men.  My disgust has been with me in that regard for some two decades, after seeing the Canadian TV miniseries The Boys Of St. Vincent.  I remember it only aired a few times in the mid 1990s on A&E in the US; yet I did find a decent web transfer of the complete 3+ hour miniseries on a Japanese hosted video site.  Here is the link at the bottom of the essay.

I post the link only because there is not a way to embed the video on this site.  None the less, it is downright disturbing, and on a different note it is still Henry Czerny's most iconic role. 

Even with all that has been mentioned, I am concerned that the Roman Catholic Church is on a path of obtaining world political leadership.  We may not have seen this in our lifetimes; yet it was not that long ago in human history that the Church was the globalist order in this world.  For hundreds of years, particularly the Middle Ages and Dark Ages prior to the Renaissance and even afterward, Kings and Queens, Dukes and Duchesses, Princes and Princesses, Military leaders and Civilian leaders, Legislators and Judges alike, all bowed down and pledged their allegiances and lives to the Church.  Whomever was Pope had final say on all social, political, economic and war decisions.  Clergymen gave their opinions and statements on issues; and governments were set forth to do the deeds of the Church.  This began to thaw slowly but surely with the German Lutheran Reformation, along with the establishment of the Church of England and Anglicanism. 

Now, under Pope Francis' leadership, more so than in any other time, the Catholic Church is now seemingly the final arbiter and ruler on all matters relating to mainland Europe.  Interestingly, that includes Germany; whose Chancellor, Angela Merkel, might not have been re-elected had not the Pope endorsed her and her Conservative minded party.  This order, for instance, that all Catholics must house the Syrian refugees in Europe seems more akin to a forced political maneuver rather than a recommendation.  I, for instance, would not be too certain to house a refugee, for reasons too varied to list here.  It now appears that the Church now dictates policy in Cuba.  I do not believe this was ever the intention of the Castro brothers when the 1959 Revolution took place. 

This public relations program the Church is now engaged in seems to the layman a good and decent success; if only one considers the public humbleness and more liberal minded attitudes and beliefs Pope Francis espouses.  But you see, that is the problem with Pope worship; only in the last year have Catholics overall been willing to accept LGBTQ people, for instance.  Just because the Pope says so, Now they can accept.  Well, I and many of my family and friends accepted the LGBTQ community long before it was considered cool to be accepting these groups of people.  In fact, so did many others become supporters and advocates of LGBTQ individuals prior to 2014.  I never needed Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis to tell me When to accept the LBGTQ community.  I do have a brain and use it regularly.  Nor do I then or now need a Catholic leader to tell me to support their agenda regarding their anti-abortion and anti-contraceptives dogma.  To me, being pro-choice is being pro-life; for I choose the life of the female rather than the implied life of a fetus.  As I have often said, our birthdays do not come on the anniversary of the date when our parents "did it". 

And yet, after this trip to Cuba, Pope Francis will make his way to the United States and will pretty much dictate the lives and beliefs of some 69.4 million Catholics; this includes Jeb Bush.  I often half jokingly wonder if, say in Washington DC or in New York, the Pope says a command like "eat a stick of butter" and many though not all would do it in fear of being excommunicated if refused.  Again it is a joke, and I know some may be saying to me "well Robert, if your favored political figure or celebrity said it, you would do it too".  No, because there is a difference.  They are not religious leaders and thus if I choose not to eat a stick of butter, they cannot force me to do otherwise.  A religious leader, such as a Pope or Cardinal or Archbishop, has this unique sway in allowing people to do things just by saying "Do It".  So if Pope Francis goes up on his pulpit and tells Catholics to vote for Jeb Bush or any other candidate beholden to the Church; I am concerned these fellow Catholics will be like lemmings willingly falling down to their premature grave. 

Well, now that I have made my concerns known, I would like to hear from you.  I have noticed that while I am getting page views, something seems to be wrong with the comments and interactivity.  Do any of you fellow readers have any suggestions?  I do have a Facebook page, search keyword Robert Kelly.  You can mention your concerns there, or even here if possible.  Might I need to change the website to a new server or hosting platform?  It does get a bit lonely only talking to myself at times.  Let me know if anything can be done about this.  I would really like to hear your views. 

I end with a rather problematic yet pertinent question.  If you were invited to the house of any of these three people:

Pope Francis
David Miscavige
Robert Durst

Which one would be honest with you?  Well, for me there is no definite answer, except maybe a fourth opinion.  Choose neither and free your mind.

It is a TED talk, yes.  But since the other choices were David Icke (an acquired taste I know) or a song which sounds a heck of a lot like Queen Of The Night (Whitney Houston off of The Bodyguard), this will suffice.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Robert






http://www.56.com/w33/play_album-aid-9150379_vid-NTY5NDg3MzY.html

Impressions on Show Me A Hero

In my previous essay, I gave a brief primer on what I think might be the most important miniseries of 2015.  That would be the David Simon & Paul Haggis 6 part miniseries Show Me A Hero.  Since I gave a synopsis and background on the events referenced in the miniseries, and mentioned some of the more noted actors and up-and-comers with great roles; I felt it best to mention some interesting aspects of what I saw that impressed me quite well.  Perhaps if you saw it, you may think the same.

Show Me A Hero begins with Nick Wasiscko (Oscar Isaac) getting out of his car and passing by the burial plot of his father.  Interspersed without much words is a cutaway shot of Wasiscko's beeper going off to remind him to call 911.  We see this scene two other times.  The second time is at the beginning of part 4, when we then see Nick looking at a person and thinking it is his father; although we do not see Nick regurgitating his Maalox.  The final time is at the end; which is the culmination of what would turn out to be his final day in life.  You see, on October 29, 1993, Nick Wasiscko killed himself right near his father's burial plot.  It was the culmination of a spiral which would have Mr. Wasiscko not be on a ballot on election day for the first time in 8 years.  By that point in his life, although married to a smart person and effectively free from the grind of Yonkers politics, Nick Wasiscko was despondent over a perceived investigation into finances accrued during his time as Mayor: although nothing relating to corruption was ever found. 

This reminded me of a technique Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu has used in his movies.  In that, Innaritu begins his films with a scene or dream that may mean something.  It is repeated at the end, only this time in an alternate fashion under a different point of view and/or an added context.  I must say I was impressed with this storytelling technique; which I think is more of a Paul Haggis trademark than you would expect from David Simon.  Initially, I did not place the scenes at the graveyard as being flash forwards until the final 20 minutes or so for Part 6.  The giveaway for me was seeing Oscar Isaac wearing the same green turtleneck as you see when Show Me A Hero starts.  That is when I realized the initial scenes at the graveyard would be repeated and enhanced at the end.  And indeed it does, coupled with a David Simon trademark ending montage and where are the rest now texts interspersed. 

This brings me to another observance about Show Me A Hero that rather stunned me.  In past David Simon series such as Homicide, The Wire, Generation Kill and Treme; characters eventually move on, many living yet some having passed.  Yet, particularly regarding The Wire, we are left with the realization that while there are changes, nothing really has changed.  Think of it: the Baltimore Homicide unit still fights an uphill cause of righting the wrongs of the city; The Game still continues even though as Slim Charles says "It just got more fierce"; we are still in Iraq and in other military zones in the Middle East; and New Orleans is still in a lengthy process of recovering. 

It is rather different in Show Me A Hero.  That is because the public housing project in Yonkers works, even to this day with some 200 projects developed each year.  Those still alive are still living in Yonkers and/or Westchester County, yet there lives are a heck of a lot better than decades prior.  As well, the legal matters regarding the City of Yonkers were eventually settled....in 2007!  None the less, they are settled.  Possibly the one leading constant in the past 28 years has been Judge Leonard B. Sand still on the bench; albeit as a senior district court judge but still quite active. 

In part 1 of this essay, I alluded to the Clarke Peters character,  Robert Mayhawk, as plausibly being a fictional composite character of the many different community organizers and land developers that were involved in the early 1990s.  I suppose I am correct in this assessment, as can be witnessed in the final end credits montage of the actor and his/her real life counterpart.  There clearly is not one for Clarke Peters.  I do feel however that Mr. Peters' role is an important piece of the puzzle when examining the matters pertaining to the housing project.  As well, similar to Peters' roles as Lester Freamon in The Wire and Big Chief in Treme, there is a sense of moral clarity and realistic ideals that his character provides to others.  I think of a scene in part 6, where Mayhawk, Oscar Newman (Peter Riegert) and others are hosting a seminar for proper neighbor policy.  Clearly, many of the African-American homeowners are feeling belittled and/or insulted.  Yet, Mayhawk responds with what TV Tropes likes to call an armor-piercing question.  I'm paraphrasing here, but what is said is that in wanting a better life, most things would be different.  Not necessarily better, but different.  So with that in mind, is it better to be in a different environment with a promising future, or a bleak future with same results?  Well, as we see towards the end, the homeowners understand these matters and are able to make different yet better lives for themselves.  Obviously it is best shown with Doreen Henderson (Natalie Paul), who has indeed become an important figure in the community. 

Show Me A Hero utilizes songs from two distinct singer songwriters.  One is Bruce Springsteen, which at times seems like during the run of the miniseries we are hearing a greatest hits package.  It is quite meticulously done and fits the scenes these songs are placed in.  A more specific and yet important example is Steve Earle.  Mr. Earle has appeared in supporting roles in The Wire and Treme; and in Show Me A Hero a deep cut from his album The Hard Way is played at the end of every installment.  It is a song named When The People Find Out.  Here is the initial recording from 1990. 

In the last installment, a newer acoustic version is heard which is more somber.  I personally prefer the newer version, which is far more biting and attentive to Earle's lyrical wisdom.  Now, there is another song played on the last installment which I am not too sure what it is, though it sounds quite good.

One final impression Show Me A Hero had on me, and I think I am not alone in this regard.  I found this miniseries to be more promising and important than a film Paul Haggis did 10 years ago.  That movie of course was Crash, which I did like and still think was a surprise gem in 2005; I do not think it was worthy of a Best Picture Oscar, as I would have preferred Munich or Syriana as better movies that year.  None the less, this is one of Mr. Haggis' best projects he has done recently.  And one of two this year, the other being his involvement in the Alex Gibney documentary Going Clear; of which I mentioned in an earlier post.

Quite honestly, I am looking forward to what will be the next David Simon series or film he and his team at Blown Deadline have up their sleeve.  Understandably, initiating a newer series or film or even book will take time; yet I look forward when the time comes.  I feel the same way for Paul Haggis and his team at Pretty Pictures.  Indeed, on a different matter, I am glad to see Mr. Haggis not need Scientology to advance in his endeavors.

Oh, one final thing.  The person in elderly care in Part 1 of Show Me A Hero looked fairly familiar.  I have now found out the actor was Rene Auberjonois; quite a nice cameo from one of the more iconic Hey, It's That Guy actors out there.  Here is one of his more known roles.

In short, Show Me A Hero is on my shortlist for the best television in 2015; it is already for me the best miniseries.  If this were a movie, it would definitely be among the best of this year.  In fact, if Show Me A Hero cannot get Emmy nominations; I do not see why it should not receive Oscar nominations.  It is that good.

All The Pieces Matter,

Robert

PS.  Related to Scientology.  I am becoming convinced that the Church of Scientology had a role in the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman.  I will explain more soon.

Show me a hero, and I will write you a tragedy.

This past Sunday night, while many my age and a number of others were watching the MTV VMAs in a year that did not honor the types of music you find on Fordham University's radio station; I was watching the concluding two hours of what I think is HBO's third important television event of the year.  The first two were the Andrew Jarecki documentary miniseries The Jinx and the Alex Gibney film Going Clear.  I could possibly add a third already in Andy Samberg's brilliant sports faux biography 7 Days In Hell.  Yet, this might have outclassed all three of them.

David Simon is clearly one of the most inventive writers and producers of TV out there today.  Show Me A Hero, a collaboration of ideas between Simon and his team along with noted filmmaker and Oscar winner Paul Haggis, is easily the best television program to have been shown this year.  It may not be at the same groundbreaking and innovative functions set forth in The Wire; yet this does come quite close in miniseries form.  Like many of Mr. Simon's projects, this delves in relations in a community in changing times.  However, this story told is one that is entirely true.

When Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was first elected to the US Senate in 1976, one of his goals relative to his home state of New York was to see implementation of housing for families and individuals with lower income levels relative to the norm in the state.  It was not until the 1982 election of Gov. Mario Cuomo, a fellow New York Democrat and political figure with a working class background, that Sen. Moynihan was able to have a statewide ally in housing plans.  At the time, New York was a state where there were an equalization between liberal minded areas and conservative minded areas.  Usually in the cities like Manhattan and the Five Boroughs, then as now, projects like public housing were given wide support. 

However, the suburbs and rural sections of the state were far more conservative and Republican oriented.  None the less, some of these enclaves like Long Island (namely Nassau County) were able to acquiesce to federal mandates for housing; willing to go along due to Republican Sen. Al D'Amato's approval of the projects.  A noted suburb that held out in initiating public housing was the Westchester County city of Yonkers.  Yonkers at that time, and now even, is a location for city dwellers without having to actually live in the city; that would include the Bronx.  Not making derogatory statements; just mentioning a fact that people who want to be close to NYC yet are not living there will prefer the housing locations in Westchester County as a more family friendly alternative.  Much of the demographics of Yonkers in the 1980s were for the most part well-to-do white families. 

That all began to change by 1987.  As a result of federally funded legislation to desegregate public housing, New York Southern District Court Judge Leonard B. Sand declared the city of Yonkers in contempt of court.  This was followed by an order to develop 200 housing quarters for lower income families in Yonkers' east side.  Many of the people living in Yonkers did not take this order lightly.  As I mentioned before, it was a predominately Republican community rejecting the more Democratic minded policies that needed to be done.  It is here that Show Me A Hero offers the stories and glimpses of many of these people who were either directly involved with providing the housing or were tenants for these projects.

Like many of David Simon's series, there is not one central person to look at when so many lives are intertwined.  Yet if there is a central figure, it would need to be Yonkers Mayor Nick Wasiscko, a Democrat who was elected to the city Council in 1985 at just 26.  Two years later, Wasiscko was elected as the youngest Mayor in the history of Yonkers at only 28.  In this miniseries, Oscar Isaac portrays Nick Wasicko in a role that were there any justice in this world he would have been given the Emmy for Best Actor in a Limited Series or Movie straight away.  In some respects, Mr. Isaac shows us a multi-tiered look at Wasiscko that does not make him look like the second coming of a Lincoln or a Roosevelt.  In fact, Wasiscko was elected Mayor on a platform of rejecting the housing decision.  Yet, after Wasiscko's election, the City of Yonkers' appeal was lost. 

There is a line in the miniseries that Oscar Isaac says during one of the more raucous council meetings which I think sums up the need to press forward with the housing projects.  The line, "Majority rules but it cannot rule contrary to the law", does give the noted conundrum on how certain matters of law need to be accepted.  And admittedly, the first three parts of this miniseries might be found by non political people to be a bit dry; what with the emphasis placed on the city council as well as the federal circuit courts.  Yet, there are not too many movies or shows that relate to the inner workings of local government when it is usually the decisions of a town council or city ordinance that will directly affect the needs and desires of its populace. 

As I mentioned earlier, Oscar Isaac and his portrayal of Nick Wasiscko may seem to be the central focus of this miniseries.  Yet, there are of course many other actor involved that merit recognition.

Catherine Keener:  her portrayal of Yonkers resident and advocate Mary Dorman would also be worthy of at least an Emmy nomination.  Keener does not show up until part two; yet it is an interesting yet understated role that reflects Mrs. Dorman's evolution from being against the public housing initiative to becoming one of the few white homeowners outside of public office willing to become friends and partners with the African-American and Hispanic communities.  There is no dramatic epiphany or any sort of emotional outburst making the change known.  Rather, similar to the gradual evolution of characters we saw on The Wire (and I am particularly thinking of Andre Royo's brilliant Bubbles), the eventual reversal of ideals comes without forewarning and yet feels as if these ideals were already in the making.

Alfred Molina:  Molina plays Mayor Hank Spallone, whom defeated Wasiscko for the job in 1989 before Spallone himself was defeated two years later.  Mayor Spallone was a brash sort of political figure that felt more at ease with being the antagonistic pest, rather than running a city.  Mr. Molina is one of our greatest actors, and even in a kind of smaller scale role, when Molina is on screen, he owns the scene. 

Ilfenesh Hadera:  she is a newly minted actress that portrays Alma Febles; a single mother from Puerto Rico that would over the years become a success story in earning a decent living and providing well for her children and now grandchildren.

Natalie Paul:  another new actress who plays Doreen Henderson.  Ms. Henderson started out having drug problems which intensified after the death of a male companion in the inner cities (played by one of the kids from season four of The Wire; I think the one that played Namond.)  She did become a success story in effectively being the leading advocate for people living in public housing, similar to what Mary Dorman was for her community. 

LaTanya Richardson Jackson:  her portrayal of Norma O'Neal is rather interesting.  Ms. O'Neal was a nurse practitioner who eventually went blind due to diabetes.  She also was very much involved in matters relating to housing, yet did not fully integrate due to different forms of opinions with newer generations of civil rights leaders. 

Clarke Peters:  the important gem in any David Simon series.  Mr. Peters only shows up in the last two parts, yet it is his portrayal of Robert Mayhawk (possibly not an actual person) that provides the conscience and wisdom of the matters relating to housing and integration.  And like in previous roles, Clarke Peters has the lines which I think matter most.

Carla Quevedo:  her portrayal of Nay Wasiscko is quite important, namely as the eventual better half of the relationship.  I do hope we hear more from Ms. Quevedo to come.

There are of course other roles and many other actors to note for this miniseries.  Winona Ryder doing excellent work as Vinni Restiano, Jim Belushi in a rare dramatic role as Mayor Angelo Martinelli, Bob Balaban doing superbly as Judge Leonard B. Sand, Jon Bernthal providing some important ideals as NAACP lawyer Mike Sussman, Peter Riegert in the role of Oscar Newman that is an important insight into how housing plans are developed.  Dominique Fishback is another up and comer portraying young single mother Billie Rowan. 

I will have a second essay to explain a lot more on many of the interesting touches made to this miniseries.  Perhaps this one is quite long as is.  None the less, it is a great miniseries; one that I think should be required viewing for anyone involved with community services pertaining to local matters.

More coming; stay tuned,

Robert

PS.  I am liking the new Google logo.  And I am keenly interested in what Alphabet will bring to the table of new ideas.

A constant shame

Every person that gives a worth for their fellow human needs to see this CBS News Sunday Morning report.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/the-navajo-water-lady/

My apologies once again for forgetting to embed the video.  I will need to do a lot better next time. 

None the less, the continued negation and shaming of the Native Americans is resoundingly disgusting.  Not one other news organization has made mention of this problem.  Why is that?  Since it is rather late, I will have another multimedia essay on this issue at a date sooner than expected.  None the less, you need to see this; and then contemplate about who you are and what you have done for these people.  How would You like it if you could not afford clean water? 

Thank you for understanding,

Robert

The one sane choice

It may be hard to believe, given not many alive now lived or remember this time period. Yet, the 1980s were not halcyon days for the United States or even the rest of the world. If or when Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman decide to do a documentary series about the eighties, I would expect people's perception of so called good times to be completely shattered. A great deal of the Republican mindset that engulfed America in the 1980s and early 1990s can be attributed to a 1979 Address to the Nation from then President Jimmy Carter. Nominally, it was the 14th in a series of Addresses involving energy usage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kakFDUeoJKM My apologies for not directly embedding the video; I am using Microsoft Windows 10 and its new browser Microsoft Edge. I will see if Chrome does things differently. None the less, the speech I linked to was and still is unique in that President Carter pretty much told the American people to stop blaming their leaders for their problems and start blaming themselves. What a concept: taking responsibility for one's own actions and thoughts! How it related to energy was effectively consume less and perhaps, maybe, turning off the heater once in a while and wearing an extra sweater. Well, within the next year, much of the American public rejected these recommendations for self preservation and much like someone being told not to do anything stupid; they tripled down on their stupidity and elected President Ronald Reagan. The Reagan era lasted a total of 12 long years. I think the only reason why it lasted this long was because it became clear, after the Iran-Contra scandal blew up in everyone's face, that an actual third term campaign for President Reagan would have resulted in a defeat. So in came George H.W. Bush to be President in 1988, retaining many of the Reagan brain trust without the public image of a failed leader. Four years later, and with the "Cold War" now extinct, the Republican Party, and with that much of the bipartisan bull crap in maintaining a "war" mindset, began to shatter immensely. I can remember those times; Dan Rather every night for a month in early 1992 introduced reports on a false and troubling U.S. financial economy. Lawrence Walsh, independent counsel investigating Iran-Contra, obtained grand jury indictments for key Reagan-Bush officials, and likely was going to indict both Presidents if possible. I do remember on Halloween Eve a re-indictment of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was obtained. It was also the year of the South Central L.A. Riots, among other social justice issues coming into view. Into this social political chaos emerged then Gov. Bill Clinton, a Democrat from Arkansas and by all accounts a Southern Centrist Democrat. And for the first time in 12 years, people were not only needing to hear the truth about their lives; they were willing to listen and make changes. If you need a visual aide on why the Clinton campaign and subsequent Presidency from 1992-2000 was successful; I would suggest watching once again the D.A. Pennebaker film The War Room, now a part of the Criterion Collection. Also of interest is Robert Downey Jr.'s opinion documentary The Last Party; though be aware this was when Downey was zonked out on booze and pills half the time. I have already alluded to and made note of the eight years of relative peace and security when William Jefferson Clinton was President. I, like you, are aware of what the past 15 years post-Clinton have been like. In short, apart from flashes of sanity within the Senate and the State Department, nothing good has come forward. You know, in only my second week as a student at Hofstra University, 9/11 occurred. One of my fellow travelers saw, like nearly all of us, the aftermath of the destruction and she said out loud "This would have never happened if Clinton was still President." And this woman, whose name I forget, was right. Indeed, there are certain times I play a what if game. That being, what if Bill Clinton decided to run for a third term? We know President Clinton would have easily been re-elected. Yet, as we know, a Clinton third term was set aside to focus on Hillary Clinton's 1999-2000 run for the Senate. She of course was elected. And I would say from that point forward, many of us that effectively were given the double deuce by the Cheney-Bush people, culminating in the 9/11 Inside Job, wanted to have the tide turn in favor of us once more. I had hoped Sen. Hillary Clinton would have ran for President in 2004. She did not, instead focusing on her 2006 Senate re-election bid. Fortunately after that election, Sen. Clinton began a process of running for the Presidency to which she was and still is entitled to I might add. In 2008, Sen. Clinton won the national Democratic Primary. Yet due to a myriad of reasons all found to be not worth my time, Clinton was barred from receiving the nomination in what amounted to a retread of the old back-room party bosses deals. We were left with then Sen. Barack Obama, the perpetual disappointment. None the less, President Obama was elected in 2008: the Clinton family's endorsement and a certainty for Sen. Hillary Clinton to be involved in the Cabinet was what sealed the deal for at least my voting for him. Yet Sec. Of State Clinton would not be in that title at the State Department for that long of a time. Sec. Of State Clinton left in 2012, which was followed as we see today of another Presidential run. Now, let me remind you I did vote for President Barack Obama again in 2012. However, I voted for Pres. Obama thinking that he would be defeated. It was more of an approval of the four years having gone by rather than the four years to come. We have seen though a continuation of a weak, egotistical, self-centered prick being a President more in line with wanting to be a celebrity more than anything. I do not know what a Republican presidency would have been like if one was elected in 2012. I sure as shit was not going to give the Romney and Paul people there fantasies. And I frankly have never liked Gov. Chris Christie; Now most people hate him, but it was not that easy being a lone voice at the time showing my disapproval on that lard. None the less, Pres. Obama winning re-election in 2012 assured a continuation of Democratic leadership for decades to come. We all were convinced after eight years of Obama there would be: Eight years of Hillary Clinton Eight years of Cory Booker Eight years of Chelsea Clinton Eight years of one of the Obama daughters. Well, now once again, there is a probability this will not happen. I have said before that Pres. Obama is actively seeking a third term. With the likelihood that he might lose, Obama and his people are setting up Vice President Joe Biden to fill the void. Interestingly, I think after Beau Biden passed away, there has been more of an incentive for VP Biden to run; fulfilling the last wishes of his son to have a Biden become President. I am not pleased with VP Biden running. This now means at least 8 Democrats are running for President! I expect Mayor Bill De Blasio to announce his candidacy shortly, and I am thinking there will be a Donald Trump equivalent for Democrats to consider before the year is out. My money is on Sen. Elizabeth Warren to make a move. By the way, Gov. Andrew Cuomo has come out in support of Sen. and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton. So too has Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Indeed, most of the Senate Democrats and nearly half of all House Democrats are endorsing Hillary Clinton. Same goes for several Diplomats, a number of businesspeople and quite a huge list of celebrities. Go look at the Clinton 2016 page on Wikipedia for an ever evolving list of endorsements. Each of these endorsees have one mindset in common: they want their political party back to where it can be in being effective in its leadership and trustworthiness. In short, they want the 1990s back. As do I. In 2008, after being given the double deuce by party bosses, we were assured that President Barack Obama would promise us everything us Clinton Democrats wanted and even more. Apart from the four years of relative decent International Diplomacy, we have been disappointed in most areas. Even certain beneficial acts like "Obama Care" were compromised from its needed intentions. I for one will not be led down a path of abject disappointment and voting for style over substance, celebrity over leadership. Taking a page from the misguided fanatics Dr. Ron Paul still continues to have, albeit in a mercifully dwindling number; my choice for President, the Only Same Choice for President, is Hillary Clinton. Should Sen. Clinton not receive the nomination, even before the primaries, if possible I will write her name in. If a write-in is not possible, then I will vote for the Democrat; albeit it will be nothing more than a protest vote. Hillary Clinton for President 2016 or no one at all. Our lives may just depend on it, Robert

Sen. John McCain is not a war hero

I wanted to start this essay by getting the most obvious out of the way.  Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is not a war hero, Vietnam or otherwise.  It is not entirely for the reasons you think.  To understand the real issues of Sen. McCain's purported 6 years as a Prisoner Of War, you need to look back at the events surrounding the US Military during the crucial year 1967. 

It was in 1967 that in the midst of both Vietnam and the Six-Day War, near the Strait of Hormuz, a military mishap occurred that until 2002 was unknown to many.  On June 8, 1967, the Naval ship USS Liberty was sailing near the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Egypt when an Israeli Naval ship approached the Liberty.  Thinking that the Liberty was an Egyptian Naval vessel, or so it was told, the IDF authorized the blockade and attack on the USS Liberty.  It resulted in the death of 34 crew members, mostly Naval officers; and another 141 wounded.  This is in addition to the destruction of the Liberty itself.  For all intents and purposes, and due to the United States supporting Israel in the Six-Day War, the incident was minimized considerably.  One surviving crew member, for instance, was awarded a Medal of Honor; the ceremony took place privately without the involvement of President Lyndon Johnson.  That is the only time a Medal of Honor recipient did not have his ceremony take place at the White House. 

To this day, many of the surviving crew members and a number of journalists and political figures in the US have expressed their opinions that a cover-up had and may still be taking place.  I happen to think the IDF attack was deliberate; a ploy to essentially tell the US Military to back off from Israel's advancement of territory and prominence in the aftermath of the Six-Day War.  A fairly well made report on the incident was presented by the BBC some years back.  Here is the video:

Now what does this have to do with Sen. John McCain?  Well, it directly has to deal with Rear Admiral John V. McCain, Sen. McCain's father and a prominent Defense Department leader in 1967.  It was Adm. McCain that essentially authorized the official cover-up by the Navy in the aftermath of the Liberty assault.  At the same time, Adm. McCain's son, Sen. McCain, was a fighter pilot with little accomplishment during the Vietnam War.  I am certain a deal was made in the DOD involving Adm. McCain to save face and avoid calls for dismissal by orchestrating a POW matter to take place wherein Sen. McCain would be held captive by Viet Cong leadership for an indefinite amount of time until the end of the US involvement in Vietnam.  That end would come in 1973.  In the interim, Adm. McCain would be able to avoid questioning because, after all, his son was a POW.  And in the Vietnam era, most US citizens would not be prone to asking questions about their leadership.  I say most citizens; there were a number that did question these motives back then, and are proven right today. 

Fortunately nowadays, the informed public does not give special treatment to a war veteran just because he or she is a war veteran.  While Sen. McCain may prove different, his Vietnam record does not have an affect on the past 30 years of Sen. McCain's life.  Come to think of it; being a war veteran does not give a person the prerequisite to run for political office.  I look at any and every candidate running for President of the United States, including pres. Barack Obama running for re-election.  Not one of them was ever in the military.  That for me is a positive trajectory; showing that the immediate reactive mindset of military procedure does not come into fruition from these individuals.

Sen. John McCain is, to say this yet again, not a war hero.  The USS Liberty cover-up tells the tale of why, in a related manner, Sen. McCain stayed captive.  By the way, does not Sen. McCain have a re-election campaign to run?  Well, if the public is not buying the war hero talk, they may not buy Sen. McCain staying in the Senate.  And this could come in a primary.

I will have more to say regarding this presidential race in the days ahead.  Being honest, I would rather prefer a Westminster style form of governance; along with a royal family, preferably the Clinton family.  Yes, that would go against US laws and precedents.  None the less; you try invoking the Bill of Rights in a family squabble.  It will never work, because reality does not function that way. 

Before I go, I want to show you a police interrogation that would lead to an African American, Sandra Bland, to her death.  It appears DWB (Driving While Black) can inadvertently result in a fatality. Word of advise to white cops:  do not do anything to a minority, ever.  Go after your own people in the force, which of course you do not do.  Also, to anyone wanting to be a cop:  Do not even think about it. 

Talk to you soon on something a bit lighter:),

Robert

That One Summer: Live On Broadway

Growing up, there were not many TV channels that showed stand up comedy.  By that I mean, an actual live stand up routine outside of a talk show or some special programming.  One of the few channels to watch both up and coming comics and seasoned veterans was HBO.  And it was HBO that broadcasted the first stand up special starring Robin Williams.  That was back in 1978 at The Roxy; a performance we know was fueled by Mr. Williams' addiction to cocaine yet was quite brilliant.  It must be seen to be appreciated. 

Robin Williams went on to star in quite a few more comedy specials, each shown on HBO.  Also, Mr. Williams became involved with Comic Relief for many years.  Each of those comedy stand up shows were hilarious and insightful.  Indeed, it is difficult to say which one of his specials was the best.  I can tell you that in the Summer of 2002, one of Mr. Williams' stand up shows was broadcasted live on HBO that nearly everyone wanted to see.  I can remember it being talked about days and even weeks afterwards.  It was Robin Williams: Live On Broadway.  And in short, I probably did not laugh as hard and as often as I did that night.

It was not even a year after 911, and for me it seemed that topical social political humor was about to be thrown out the window, as it were.  People then, as now, more interested and comforted in bathroom jokes and celebrity impersonations and parodies.  Yet, by 2002, that was changing and quite rightly so.  Bill Maher may have been the spark that got political humor going again; to say nothing of the likes of George Carlin and others leading the way.  Yet I think that night in July, it was Robin Williams that dared to go all out.  Of course, Mr. Williams always went all out in his beliefs.  A very good example involved this little gem.

"Oh, guess what?  Congress has passed a bill to secretly assassinate Saddam Hussein.

So what they have done, is announce the US' plans to secretly assassinate Saddam Hussein.

I wonder if he knows?"

The audience both live and watching just about fell to the floor laughing.  In that one humorous observation, Robin Williams told everyone what a waste of time and money an invasion of Iraq would be.  That of course was one of many different people and things he made fun of that night.  I honestly do not know where to start with the best bits.

Would it be his Scotsman explaining golf?

His look at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City?

Mr. Williams doing a very succinct Donald Rumsfeld?

His extremely hilarious look at religion?  Which I might add only Bill Maher was on par with in that department?

Robin Williams observing that after 911, not much has changed in New York attitudes? 

His takedown on our at the time growing plastic surgery and medicine for sex fetishes?

Whatever it was, that night Robin Williams showed a vitality and sharp mind that I suppose was undervalued given Mr. Williams' film roles and cheery personality.  Yet, Robin Williams had always been edgy in his stand up comedy.  Go back and look at his comedy specials before Live On Broadway and even afterwards and you will see his genius on full display.  Plus, if you had received the DVD version, there was a lot more where that came from. 

At that point in Mr. Williams' life, it seemed like he was at the top of his influence; possibly far more influential than at any other time in his life.  And there was still more to come from Robin Williams in 2002.  Indeed, by August movie audiences were treated to one of the defining roles Mr. Williams had done in his life and one which, for myself, I walked out of the theater feeling disturbed.  That movie was of course One Hour Photo; a role of his that I had thought would have garnered Robin Williams another Academy Award nomination.  Alas, it did not.  Yet, it was the culmination of a revitalization that should have, if given more of a look, been the spark that changed Mr. Williams' trajectory in his humor and his acting. None the less, we still have That One Summer.

An essay on One Hour Photo is forthcoming,

Robert

PS.  Here in its complete glory is the Live On Broadway special I was talking about. 

That one summer: Insomnia

It was 13 years ago in June 2002.  I was a 19 year old student enrolled at Hofstra University studying Political Science and Sociology at a most interesting time both in our world and for myself.  Of the many events and changes made that summer, what stood out for me was Robin Williams.  He was on a roll, starring in two psychological thrillers and going out on a stand-up comedy tour where he sold out every venue.  No one ever thought of the problems that laid ahead for this genius. 

What I saw first was Insomnia.  It was only the third movie to be directed and co-produced and co-written by a budding prodigy in filmmaking.  His name: Christopher Nolan, having been known previously for his independent debut Following (1993) and then the underground hit Memento (2000).  Both stylish and unique movies that only scratched the surface of this singular talent.  So it seemed a bit curious as to why Nolan would have his next movie be a big-budget remake of a 1997 Erik Skjoldbjaerg low budget thriller based in Norway. 

For those not familiar, the original movie starred Stellan Skarsgard as a police detective investigating the murder of a 17 year old girl in the Arctic region.  Skarsgard's character, Jonas, has problems of his own; namely an inability to sleep which does not help being in the Arctic during the months of full daylight.  Also during the height of the investigation , Jonas accidentally shoots his partner, Erik.  Eventually things come to a head when the killer of the girl, played by Bjorn Floberg, begins calling Jonas and appearing at inopportune times with knowledge of the shooting of Erik.  Now, the original movie was interesting in its own way.  I vividly remember Siskel and Ebert giving it their two thumbs up; Roger Ebert even comparing the movie favorably with the great Fyodor Dosteyevsky novels.  You can find this movie on DVD and Blu-Ray from the Criterion Collection.

So that was the original movie: what about the remake that Christopher Nolan helmed?  Interestingly, it might be somewhat better than the original, upping the ante on the psychological situations and providing a multi-layer approach with many of the non lead characters.  Some of the plot points are similar; only this time it is in Nightmute, Alaska during the months of the Midnight Sun.  As well, Al Pacino plays Will Dormer, a detective with more problems going in to Alaska than initially surmised; namely being exiled from the LAPD after an IA investigation shows fabrication of evidence in the conviction of a child murderer. 

Any time a fellow actor is in the same film as Al Pacino there is bound to be a sense that the actors and the audience are just waiting for some scenery chewing.  Rest assured, there is what we expect from Pacino in at least two interrogation scenes.  Yet, as we have come to expect from Christopher Nolan, the rest of the cast hold their own.  When I saw Insomnia, I was rather impressed with Maura Tierney in one of her breakthrough roles; her character being the hotel manager that moved to Alaska for reasons unexplained.  Martin Donovan did rather well in his brief appearance as Will Dormer's partner.  Also, it was interesting to see Hilary Swank's character get more nuanced and greater screen time than in the original movie.  Yet, by far, the film was elevated exponentially by Robin Williams. 

Williams and his character, now named Walter Finch, does not appear until about 50 minutes in.  Yet once you hear his voice saying to Will Dorner "Can't sleep, eh?",  one of Williams' more creepier roles comes to life.  Here is one such example when Finch explains why he killed the 17 year old.

It just gets more creepier from there onward.  In a way, the action set pieces are among the most realistic in any Christopher Nolan film.  And for those who want to know; yes, the ending is changed somewhat.  However, I think it works quite well. 

Now, getting back to my reasoning for this essay.  I mentioned before that it seemed that 2002 showed us a more disturbing and unsettling public view of Robin Williams.  It was not as if Mr. Williams had not shown it in previous roles.  But for me, those more serious films like The World According To Garp, Moscow On The Hudson, Dead Poets Society, The Fisher King, Toys, Dead Again, Good Will Hunting, and even What Dreams May Come presented Robin Williams in more sympathetic traits for his characters.  And even in his more serious roles, there was always a tinge of his unique humor that would show up if ever so briefly.  It was as if Mr. Williams were saying to us "Look, I still have my laughter and manic style.  This is only a role".  Yet, I suppose when he reached 50, and probably taking a hint from his Oscar winning role in Good Will Hunting (1997) and a late breakthrough performance in What Dreams May Come (1998); perhaps Robin Williams wanted to go a different path.

It started innocuously enough with the dark comedy Death To Smoochie, a movie which I still have not seen.  Admittedly, I was not interested in a story of a children's television star being a prick.  None the less, it was Insomnia that I and perhaps others felt for the first time seeing a character Mr. Williams was playing: in this case Walter Finch, and finding it very hard to root for the guy.  Admittedly, it is hard to root for many of the characters in this film.  Perhaps Hilary Swank and Martin Donovan play characters we can relate to.  Not so with others.  I suppose it makes sense that in this version; Al Pacino's Will Dorner eventually does not deny a reason to shoot the Martin Donovan character early on.  Not to mention, Dorner is cured of his insomnia, so to speak, by dying in the chase and gunfight towards the end.  A bit tailor made for Hollywood; yet the essence of the ending in the Stellan Skarsgard version remains. 

Insomnia was a breakthrough film in so many different ways.  It was Christopher Nolan alongside long time collaborators like DP Wally Pfister, screenwriting brother Jonathan Nolan, and producer and wife Anna Thomas that proved to be making highly acclaimed and financially rewarding pictures.  A bit afterwards, Nolan and Thomas' company Syncopy secured a development deal with Warner Bros; where their films have been financed or co-produced ever since.  Hilary Swank got to appear in her first financially successful movie.  Maura Tierney, Nicky Katt and Martin Donovan were able to successfully become involved in leading roles for movies and TV shows down the line.  And you know something; Al Pacino did not need to go over the top and chew the scenery that much in this film. 

More notably, for a time, Robin Williams starting with Insomnia began to appear in a series of movies and even a Broadway show that had him become the disturbed and yet soft spoken guy who we in the audience are both shocked  and intrigued by.  By all rights, this movie and One Hour Photo which was released in August 2002 should have been the game changer for Mr. Williams.  It really should have been the movies that would have been for Mr. Williams what, for instance, Schindler's List meant for Steven Spielberg: the point of maturity and demarcation in which there was no going back to the old ways.  I believe Robin Williams could have been nominated for an Academy Award for either of those two movies; a Best Supporting Actor nod with Insomnia might have made the ensuing race a heck of a lot more interesting.  Alas, that renaissance did not last long.  Maybe it was for the best.  Yet maybe, if the trajectory in Robin Williams' film roles were of the more dramatic sort, what transpired in his last years on this earth might not have happened. 

Just as Robin Williams was at his A game with his Summer 2002 movie slate; so too was he back in action and better than many of his peers when it came to his stand up comedy tour.  It culminated in late July with his remarkable HBO special, Live On Broadway.  That will be discussed next as we look back at That One Summer.

Happy 4th of July everyone!,

Robert

Some names of artists that might join the greats

Now that I have discussed who I think will be nominated for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame later this year as performers; I feel it best to turn my attention to who could potentially be on my ballot for the Revisited/Projected Rock Hall Project.  I mentioned that I believe it is the Crown Jewel of the website Future Rock legends.  While not going into detail on all of the artists on my relative shortlist; I do categorize these artists in what are their chances for probable inclusion onto my ballot.

Likely to go on my ballot.

Mariah Carey
Dave Matthews
Alan Parsons/Eric Woolfson/The Alan Parsons Project
Janelle Monae
Tangerine Dream
The Killers
Foreigner

On my immediate shortlist  and thus possibly going to be on my ballot.

Arctic Monkeys
Deadmau5
Sarah McLachlan
The Strokes
Tears For Fears
Muse
Phil Collins
Joan Jett
Panic! At The Disco
Justin Timberlake
Beyoncé
Ben E. King
Robert Palmer
Carly Simon
Blink 182
Elliott Smith
Sheryl Crow
Supertramp
Neu!

Might consider if momentum is given by fellow posters

Huey Lewis
Kenny Loggins
Pet Shop Boys
Fall Out Boy
The Bangles
Hole
Dan Fogelberg
Vangelis
Mike Oldfield
Lionel Richie
30 Seconds to Mars
Neil Finn
Bread
10cc
Dream Theater
Boston
Yellow Magic Orchestra
X Japan
Gackt
Seal
Peter Tosh
Pat Benatar
Ed Sheeran


Out of left field ideas

Barbra Streisand
MGMT
Franz Ferdinand
Blue Oyster Cult
Kansas
Patti Labelle
Meat Loaf
The Tubes
Ryan Adams
Frankie Goes To Hollywood
Ultravox
Jennifer Warnes
The Dells
Steve Hackett
The Stylistics
Sting
Neil Innes
Styx
Spoon
Paul Butterfield
TV On The Radio
Wesley Willis
Squeeze
Gin Blossoms
Toad The Wet Sprocket


Those were Performer candidates.  Now here are some Non-Performer candidates.

Likely to go on my ballot.

Kevin Godley & Lol Crème
Jim Steinman

Possible contenders and left field candidates.

John Landis
Martin Scorsese
Russell Mulcahy
Linda Perry
Hype Williams
Kurt Loder
Cameron Crowe
Murray "The K" Kaufman
Lorne Michaels
David Letterman
Frankie Knuckles
Simon Cowell
Ryan Seacrest
David Foster
Howard Stern
Albert Maysles
D.A. Pennebaker
The Houser Brothers (Sam and Dan Houser from Rockstar Games)
Sir Tim Rice
Bruce Gowers
Doctor Demento
Neil Walls
Hugh Padgham
Steve Lillywhite
Flood
1st Generation MTV VJs
2nd Generation MTV VJs
3rd Generation MTV VJs
Dame Anne Nightingale

Here then are Influences from the pre-Rock and not confined to Rock and Roll eras that are viable candidates.

Likely to be on my ballot.

Tom Lehrer
Loretta Lynn

Probable candidates and left field choices.

Johann Sebastian Bach
John Williams
Lena Horne
Sarah Vaughan
Tony Bennett
Andy Williams
Fats Waller
Harry Belafonte
Kenny Rogers
Elliott Carter
Gene Autry
Roy Acuff
Richard Strauss
Jim Henson
Judy Garland
Aaron Copland
Leonard Bernstein


And finally, here are candidates on my shortlist for the Sidemen category.

Likely to be on my ballot.

Jennifer Batten
Ringo Starr

May be included and also left field ideas.

Paul Carrack
Bill Evans
The Roots
Bob Babbitt
Dick Parry
MFSB
Chester Thompson
George Duke
Steve Lukather
Carlos Alomar
Neil Innes

So, there are some ideas that may come to fruition by the end of the month of October.  It should be a rather interesting discussion that lays ahead.

Talk to you more about this fairly sooner than you think,

Robert

Handicapping the Class of 2016: Rock Hall Editon

I have been interested in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for quite some time now.  I suppose it goes back to when the Hall was opened in Cleveland, Ohio back in 1995.  It seemed a rather odd yet intriguing premise: a building and history project that sought to honor and determine who are the most important rock artists and non-performers in the Rock and Roll medium.  Unlike a sport hall of fame where statistics and numbers are of the most importance to determine an induction, recorded and performed music has no such obvious criterion.  Getting a number one hit album or song, for example, does not thankfully indicate Hall of Fame worthiness. 

As the years have gone by, the RRHOF has become quite important to merit worldwide attention and a fair deal of hand-wringing debates and responses.  For myself, I feel as if I and a number of others have helped to steer the influence.  You see, for the past 7 years, I have been an active participant on the website Future Rock Legends.  On there, my user name is Lax followed by the number of my current age.  I will explain why I picked the name Lax later.  In any matter, the Future Rock Legends website itself has grown to include numerous polls and ballots to determine what are the best Songs and Albums of all time.  Our Crown Jewel though is the Revisited/Projected Rock Hall Project. 

It was initiated in 2010 as a way for the FRL community to look back at prior RRHOF inductions and determine what would we do and who would we induct each of those years through 2010. We then went through a phase of looking 16 years in the future to determine what our own Hall of Fame would look like by adding more inductees through a projected 2026 induction.  We stopped there as we fit 10 years in the real world would be a sufficient amount of time to determine on FRL who would make the Hall, either in our website or the actual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame itself. 

Since then each successive year we have added a new class of inductees from our own ballots of 7 Performers, 2 Non-Performers, 2 Influences and 2 Sidemen.  Whichever artists, groups and non-performers get the most votes to make it to the top positions in each category are thereby inducted.  Now, perhaps this may not mean much; yet here is an interesting anecdote.

Last Summer, many of the posters on FRL  had come to a consensus that Bill Withers had ben massively overlooked for induction.  Indeed before the October vote began, many of us mentioned on the message boards our intent to add Bill Withers on our ballots.  This might likely have struck a nerve with the RRHOF Nominating Committee; for in early October, Mr. Withers was announced as one of the 16 nominees for possible induction into the RRHOF in 2015.  I should point out that we at FRL voted right after the announcements.  Within a week, when the votes were tabulated, Bill Withers was easily inducted into our Revisited/Projected Rock Hall Project; indeed, Mr. Withers had more votes than any other person or band. 

Well, flash forward to December when the RRHOF announced their 2015 inductees.  One of the 8 inducted was indeed Bill Withers.  As an added bonus, Lou Reed was posthumously inducted right after the Revisited/Projected ballots had Mr. Reed obtaining the second most votes of any other person or band.  I would like to think we at Future Rock Legends, not to mention the fan ballot by the actual Hall of Fame website, had a hand in  getting these two important artists to be inducted into the actual Hall of Fame. 

In September, the RRHOF Nominating Committee will meet in New York to discuss which 16 artists and/or bands will be put up for nomination as Performers for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction class of 2016.  The only specific qualification for induction is for the artist or band to have made a record of some kind (debut album, demo tape, home recording) at least 25 years ago.  For this year, it means any artist who started out by 1990 is now eligible.  We at Future Rock Legends will concurrently be planning for our newest Revisited/Projected class with the cutoff date for the first recording being 2005.  This allows our more recent induction classes to be an indicator of what the Nom Com may likely put up for nomination this year.  Here is who I think at this time will be the 16 artists and/or bands nominated this year.

Alice In Chains:  Easily one of the best alternative/grunge bands in their time.  Their music was far much heavier and darker than many would initially realize, fueled namely by Layne Staley's autobiographical lyrics and singing alongside Jerry Cantrell's interesting counterpoints.  Alice In Chains has continued onward long after Staley died of a drug overdose in 2002; this time with newer lead singer William Duvall. 

Blur:  Four British chaps who became the defining faces and forefathers of Britpop, including a most sophisticated intelligence and musical outlook.  Their mixtures of soul, pop, rock, intimate singer-songwriter approaches, and even a bit of musical parody has not been duplicated by other artists since their initial recordings. 

The Smashing Pumpkins:  Growing up in the 1990s, there were only a select few artists and bands that when they came out with a new album and tour, everything stopped to take all the newer material in.  The Smashing Pumpkins were one of those bands throughout the 90s that would release a new album or tour and everyone just had to follow them.  For an Alternative band, they were at the edge of defying labels and just putting out what they felt they needed to put out.  A lot of this was and still is due to the near singular vision brought forth by Billy Corgan, an awesome lyricist, singer and instrumentalist that showed a great deal of intelligence and song craft that is varied and rather thoughtful.  Like many, I have felt the best years of the Smashing Pumpkins were when James Iha, D'Arcy Wretzky and Jimmy Chamberlin were in the group; adding subtle layers and textures to Corgan's ideas.  None the less, what we have are the records and concerts that still to this day matter as being influential for newer artists.  It has been 20 years since Mellon Collie and The Infinite Sadness; and it still sounds fresh and energetic today as it did back then.

Chic:  The preeminent dance-soul-funk-disco band of all time, as far as I am concerned.  Nile Rodgers to this day remains one of the most gifted and accomplished people in the music industry.

N.W.A:  Before Dr. Dre went out on his own, there was N.W.A., a rap and hip-hop group that were brash, politically charged and did not give a crap if you cared for them or not.  Much of what hip-hop is positioned as today comes from the likes of Ice Cube, Eazy-E, Mc Ren, DJ Yella and of course Dr. Dre in their relatively brief tenure. 

The Eurythmics:  Perhaps the most important New Wave act to come out of their era, certainly the most interesting.  Annie Lennox is clearly one of the best singers of her or any other time; quite the good instrumentalist and producer with a keen songwriting approach is Dave Stewart.  Both In their writings and performances were doing things not seen before or really even since with their brash outlook. 

Depeche Mode:  The forefathers of Emo and EDM that made personal songs at a time when superficiality ruled the airwaves.  what Dave Gahan, Martin Gore and Andy Fletcher have done in some 35 years is very astonishing.  Gahan is the voice, Gore is the guitar and the words, Fletcher is the one that puts it all together; and while with the band, Alan Wilder was the trained musician.  To still be innovative today as you were back then is a rare accomplishment that Depeche Mode have uniquely been able to succeed at. 

Nine Inch Nails:  be it a band or just a name for Trent Reznor, Nine Inch Nails defined the Industrial subgenre which has since been expanded by many newer artists. 

Yes:  The most progressive, eclectic and proficient of the Art Rock groups.  Quite a number of lineup changes; each one quite excellent in its own way.

Janet Jackson:  The youngest of the Jackson siblings and the most accomplished female from the family.  During her prime, Janet was just as equally innovative as Michael was; and perhaps a bit more proficient in material coming out.  Fortunately, Janet Jackson has a new album coming out this year, her first since Michael Jackson passed away.  I cannot wait to hear it.

Kate Bush:  A rather left-field nominee, to be sure.  Yet, Bush is one of the absolute best singer-songwriters with a very unique approach to performance and recording. 

Kraftwerk:  Perhaps the most influential group not yet inducted.  To list their firsts and their innovations would need to take a longer essay.  And that may happen if it is needed.

Link Wray:  The innovative guitarist that brought the power chord to a wider audience; along with being an important figure for people of Native American heritage.  I feel Link Wray is best suited for an induction in the Performers category.

Jeff Lynne/Electric Light Orchestra:  It is interchangeable in whatever approach is given.  None the less, one of the most brilliant minds in the rock field may hopefully get the recognition long sought after.

Nick Drake:  A most mercurial and mysterious singer songwriter who passed away at age 26.  No concert footage or film of Nick Drake is readily available.  Yet we do have Drake's music; and what great music it was.  Sparse yet effective, wistful yet a tinge of hope sought in each lyric. 

Deep Purple:  A band that I think would have already gotten in if past relations with living former bandmates were not as tenuous as they have been now.  Still to this day a most varied and harder rocking band that have influenced countless newer artists.

Well, those are the 16 I think will be nominated.  Tune in by tomorrow, I hope, where I will explain my preliminary picks for induction into the Revisited/Projected Rock Hall Project.  Who knows; perhaps one or two may wind up as nominees on the RRHOF ballot. 

Have a good night; more to come,

Robert